Talk:Church of Scientology blames Pearl Harbor, 9/11 on psychiatry

Review

Revision 770680 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Interesting article. Gopher65talk 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 770680 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Interesting article. Gopher65talk 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Comments page missing

The comments page for this article seems to have been detached from the main article, when I click the "opinions" tab on the top of the page it gives me a 404 error. Any way to fix this? ♪ Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, when using the HYS template (the one we ask questions), makes a new comments page aside from the one we already have. I don't know how to fix this though. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a new comments page. It simply takes the existing link, removes the commas, slashes, etc from the link, and turns them into characters. %2F is the character for a forward slash, and for some reason %2F isn't allowed in URLs on servers running apache 1 (like the wikimedia servers, apparently). So the URL is rejected. The comments page still works, it's just the comments tab that is broken because of the / in the URL. Here is the link to the bugzilla page for this bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9204 Gopher65_talk 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about the bug. :) Cirt (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenuous sources

This is a real reach. I am seriously surprised this was published without questions being raised about its newsworthyiness. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I have been trying to find more legit sources, especially for the video, but it has gotten just about as bad as the Tom Cruise bit. The Church has been on a youtube rampage and has been quite successful so far and any of the legit articles linking to the videos are generally doing it from YouTube. Since they don't write more than a paragraph or two you sorta have to rely on the video as the actual source. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This sort of, er... "absolute bollocks" has been a recurring feature on alt.religion.scientology. Anyone who knows a little about CoS is well aware they are ideologically opposed to psychiatry. They will say anything and everything to promote their belief that shrinks are corrupt, evil, and kiddie fiddlers. Their blaming the psychiatric medical profession for these events is not news - it is evidence they're batshit insane. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, most people seem to think that Scientology is a religion based on atheism, because it has "science" in its name. This is propagated by the fact that a good many Hollywood stars, well known for being wacko lefty anti-Christian nutjobs (and therefore, in the eyes of Americans, anti-religion), are supporting the cult. So to them, it is just 'more proof', as they would say, that science is nothing more than another religion. Because Scientology is so closed, a normal person watching nothing but CNN never hears differently. All they know is that Tom Cruise is crazy, and that he jumps on couches while saying he doesn't like psychiatrists.

So the newsworthy bit was that they went on television spouting their ridiculous crap openly, rather than behind closed doors like they normally do. Just like the Tom Cruise incident(s). Maybe that's a bit thin, but I thought it was enough for it to be news. Gopher65_talk 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

God help us if these ignorant bumpkins ever elect someone - oh, wait... that was the last eight years. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

lol, yet again / obvious bias

what is the fascination with linking ANONYMOUS with every damned piece wikinews does on the CoS?

The last paragraph betrays obvious bias for the author to state emphatically that the charges are false. it is not the place of news piece to either form an, or influence opinion, but rather to state indisputable fact. - Imind (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would read the related news link, you would see that the Finnish authorities said to me/Wikinews that there was no connection with Anonymous whatsoever: Monday, October 20, 2008: "According to the leader of the criminal investigation of the Jokela High School Shooting in 2007, there was no link between the group called 'Anonymous' and the offender [Auvinen]," said Tapio Ahola, Detective Chief Inspector of the NBI to Wikinews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kamikaze/Pearl Harbor

Kamikaze pilots did not attack Pearl Harbor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.210.232.238 (talk • contribs)

See the next sentence. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
"Millenium" => "Millennium" (note that it is a link, thus two changes) Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)